Help Mom go Nuclear on Mother’s Day

She wants what's best for you . . .

Mother polar bear with cubs Moms protect their children. For better or worse, she does what she thinks best, given her means. She sees to our needs, supports us when we struggle and helps us develop into self-reliant adults, often at great personal sacrifice.

But we are now at a critical junction in human history, perhaps one of the most crucial moments that will determine our trajectory. Our moms, for all their superpowers, may not fully recognize the new threat we face—because it is entirely invisible.

CO₂, the waste emission created by our growing energy usage, is both colorless and odorless. Yet, it is impacting our future. Unlike with most types of toxic emissions that contribute to smog, moms can't see that the emissions from powering things we love—cars, boats, planes, televisions, computers, refridgerators, washing machines, phones, the Internet, websites and especially our homes—has filled our atmosphere with large molecules that serve to turn the heat up on the planet.

Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?

Mother goose For eons, moms have been perfectly evolved to meet their primary job qualifications: to provide for her child's physical and psychological safety. For as long as we have had recorded history, moms' love has helped populations thrive. But things have changed dramatically. Humanity, empowered with technologies unimaginable mere decades ago, are causing profound changes to our climate and ecosystems for the worse. Weather patterns are changing. Days are hotter and there are more of them. Trees flower earlier in the season. There is less and less rain, more severe droughts and forest fires. Areas that could once be farmed, can no longer grow crops. Fish populations that fed millions have declined. Bees, bats and insects are disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes arrive more frequently and fiercely. How can moms defend their children from a heating planet and all of its related effects? The job of protecting children from these climate threats is not straight-forward and may seem quite impossible, yet there are important things moms can and should do.

Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.

Many moms are already concerned about climate and fighting back. She may be planting trees, using less paper, fussing to close lights and turning down the heat. She's also probably recycling, refusing plastic straws and plastic bags and composting. Moms with excess resources are likely donating to stem deforestation, habitat loss and species extinction. She may even opt to invest in ESG and impact-focused funds. While laudable, none of these activities directly target the cause of the problem and so are not a good use of moms' time, talents or resources.

Mom, like the rest of us, must focus on the root cause of climate change. Which is the CO₂ emissions from humanity's collective burning of over 100 million gallons of oil per day, 25 million tons of coal and a comparable amount of natural gas each day. It is these daily energy choices that generate over 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions waste daily and over 40 billion tonnes annually—an enormous amount that goes almost entirely into the atmosphere, which further heats the planet. This is the real problem and the only way to lessen the threat we're facing is to transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to other types of energy that don't emit CO₂.

Tripling nuclear pledge cop28 The good news: Over 200 countries agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a global imperative. In late 2023, world leaders met in Abu Dhabi, Dubai at COP 28 and specifically agreed on this. It won't surprise Mom at all that it took all 28 of these week-long annual "Conference of the Parties" gatherings to arrive at this generic agreement. It was every bit as difficult as getting a child to agree to clean up his room. But they got it done at last. Some thirty countries committed to triple the amount of nuclear they use. Others committed to increasing their wind and solar. As hard as it was to arrive at this agreement, there's still much disagreement over how to effect this transition and over what period of time.

The bad news: While there's been considerable progress building out wind and solar, these technologies haven't lived up to the hype that they can solve the problem. Everyone hoped they would and, yes, we love getting free energy from the sun and the wind. Sadly, the actual technologies required to capture and convert that natural energy into power are neither free nor efficient. In the "you get what you pay for" department, renewables are cheap but so unreliable that even where they've been fully built out, we still need to burn fossil fuels to meet the 24/7 level of energy demanded by customers. It turns out that our near constant energy demand doesn't pair well with highly intermittent sources like wind and solar. Adding them to the grid has increased costs to end users largely because of the need for significant further expenditures on peaker gas plants and large batteries to try to firm up their very low generation capacity.

What other clean energy options are there?

There aren't many, which is why we need better options. And we need them urgently. Among the options we have are hydro power, geothermal power and nuclear power. Hydro and geothermal power are currently limited to specific geographies, most of which areas are already fully exploited. Traditional grid-scale nuclear is pretty darn good (despite its reputation) but has historically come in a "one-size-fits-all" configuration that can cost billions and take a decade or more to build. Against this backdrop, there's more good news.

Our world in data energy graphic

Entrepreneurs are working to innovate to make nuclear power smaller, modular and safer. And, best of all, these new advanced designs are on the verge of being commercialized, so adding exciting new energy options that can directly replace smaller coal and gas plants. Meanwhile, they are rapidly becoming the most compelling medium-term solution to our energy problems. Just recently, Google, Amazon, Dow Chemical, Nucor and other large companies have begun to place orders for power from advanced nuclear because they see it as helping them meet both their energy growth and decarbonization goals.

Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?

Mothers for peace For most of our lives, our moms opposed nuclear power. They feared nuclear bombs and believed that nuclear power plants posed similar risks. The idea that a melt-down accident at a nuclear power plant could explode and contaminate huge swaths of land seemed like an existential threat that had moms everywhere up in arms. Accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima seemed only to prove them right. Protesting moms did their thing and eventually succeeded in preventing new nuclear power plants from being built for most of the last 40 years. At the time, with their then limited understanding of the risks, this seemed like the right thing to do, so it is easy to understand the rationale. But was it?

Kennedy and weinberg Now, more than 40 years later, we actually have a much better understanding. And it turns out it was a huge mistake. Had the original plans developed by Presidents Eisenhower and, later, John F. Kennedy to build out a fleet of nuclear power plants to meet all US energy needs succeeded, we would not have a climate catastrophe on our hands. But, because of public opposition, nuclear grew only to be 20% of our electricity needs and then its growth was halted.

In its place, the fossil fuel industry was allowed to grow unchecked, vastly accelerating CO2 emissions and turning global warming into a full blown catastrophe. We've already seen 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of confirmed warming and there much more to come, as more emissions are added to the existing molecular blanket trapping solar radiation and heating the planet. It is as bad for the health of our planet as it would be if your child had a fever of 102.7 that just continued rising.

While the worst impacts of our use of fossil fuels may still be a ways off, even the current level poses an existential risk to humanity. We are failing to meet our initial goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030, which is five years away and emissions have not declined at all. Not solving this problem by greatly reducing our level of emissions is causing tremendous psychological stress in younger generations. This is why moms everywhere need to act and fast. They need to show their children that they are doing what it takes, which requires thinking outside the box and being willing to do things we may not be comfortable with.

Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.

Things seem bad right now. The Trump Administration is in denial about climate change and the very topic of climate change has become terribly polarized. Progressives want to end fossil fuel use but demand that we replace it with renewables, which clearly aren't up to the job. Conservatives are rightly worried about rising energy prices and energy reliability and love nuclear but they've shown little concern about addressing climate. While thsese differences cause political dysfunction, there is considerable bipartisan agreement about the need to accelerate advanced nuclear. Somehow, between climate doom and climate denial, both sides for vastly different reasons, agree on the importance of accelerating next-generation nuclear.

Gov newsom at diablo canyon This bipartisan support is not new It started with the Obama Administration, which set the stage to support nuclear innovation. Thereafter, the first Trump Administration signed several pieces of legislation passed by the Congress aimed at accelerating the commercialization of next-generation nuclear. Then, in the lead-up to the IRA, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act, which set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with funding to help prevent the premature closure of nuclear power plants. Governor Newsom used these funds to help save Diablo Canyon. The IRA provided further support for nuclear by levelling the playing field and allowing nuclear power to qualify for the same clean energy tax benefits that wind and solar could. Biden also signed the ADVANCE Act, which accelerates the commercialization of nuclear with a series of reforms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its mission and its process.

In each instance, Congress supported efforts to accelerate the commercialization of next-generation with huge bipartisan majorities, and often just a few nay votes. This shows just how much attitudes have changed around nuclear energy, which has one of the lowest carbon intensities—so is a top solution to climate change—while at the same time, providing energy security, job creation and national security. At the moment, although the Trump Administration has shown no interest in supporting climate goals, the DOE recently re-issued a $900 million funding solicitation left over from the Biden era for advanced nuclear. Nuclear energy is the middle ground we need to solve climate.

Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution

Supporting the growth of advanced nuclear energy is the ideal pathway for those seeking to solve climate change. Next-gen nuclear is already in demand by tech hyperscalers and others seeking clean and reliable sources of energy. The innovations underway are working to make these new designs safer, cheaper and easier to deploy. The whole nuclear industry is hard at work increasing capacity factors, improving materials, fabricating safer fuels, making operations more efficient and training workers. This makes it the perfect time to invest into these ventures, so that new designs can finally get to market and energy buyers can begin to displace fossil fuels.

Maddy Hilly, a pregnant mom, pictured standing next to nuclear waste

A pregnant Maddy Hilly standing next to a dry cask storage tank holding nuclear waste.

So, for Mother's Day, help your mother get caught up with nuclear's incomparable safety record. Explain the many amazing benefits of nuclear. Show her that nuclear helps reduce ecologic impacts and cleans the air. Clarify why concerns about nuclear waste are a political red herring, since nuclear's waste is already safely stored on site—as shown by Maddy Hilly at the INL—hurting no one and definitely not causing climate change, in stark contrast to fossil fuel waste, which pollutes the air, contributes to millions of premature deaths annually and causes our slow-moving global climate disaster.

Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day

Help mom become one of the growing numbers of women supporting nuclear. Introduce her to groups like Mothers for Nuclear, and show her how working mothers have launched pronuclear non-profits and permeated the nuclear industry because of their concerns about climate change. It doesn't take a mom to recognize that fossil fuels are well past their "Sell by" dates and need to go! But before that transition can happen, there has to be a much better way to generate reliable energy. That's next-generation nuclear power and why it is so important to get these technologies to market as fast as possible.

Mom will appreciate learning about next-gen nuclear and the many ways that she can help, whether by joining or supporting an organization like Mothers for Nuclear, investing into this sector and funding the companies developing innovative solutions or just by talking to her friends about nuclear power—it will all help. Almost nothing else she can do will be as effective at the global scale. But helping next-generation nuclear succeed can have a direct future impact on reducing carbon emissions.

She already loves you forever. You can now help her do her job to protect your future.

Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!

Elizabeth in vest Thank you for reading this. Love of our children and deep appreciation of what nuclear offers humanity is why we have worked to build the first venture fund that invest in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization innovations. Nucleation's Fund I is in its fourth year and still accepting new accredited investors every quarter. We have made it easy and affordable. If you or your mom subscribe between Mother's Day and May 30th, 2025 and reference this Mother's Day post, we will send you your choice of a Nucleation Capital T-shirt, vest or baseball cap. Learn more and subscribe here.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Air pollution, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Energy abundance, Energy transition, Extreme weather, Fission, Fossil fuel mortality, Fossil fuels, NEWS, Nuclear innovation, Nucleation communications, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership

February 20, 2025

Global warming has accelerated and the news is not getting out: A Report from Dr. James Hansen

Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years, the 12-month average peaking in August 2024 at +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). Polar climate change has the greatest long-term effect on humanity, with impacts accelerated by the jump in global temperature. We find that polar ice melt and freshwater injection onto the North Atlantic Ocean exceed prior estimates and, because of accelerated global warming, the melt will increase. As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC. If AMOC is allowed to shut down, it will lock in major problems including sea level rise of several meters – thus, we describe AMOC shutdown as the “point of no return.”

Published by Valerie Gardner in Air pollution, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Extreme weather, REPORTS, Scientific debate, Solving climate

February 27, 2024

Deviations from the abnormal to the freakish

David Gelles bravely titles his Climate Forward article in the New York Times, "Scientists are Freaking Our About Ocean Temperatures." It would have been every bit as accurate, but possibly less acceptable, if he had said scientists are freaking out about climate change or global warming rather than "ocean temperatures." But, since much of the warming that we're causing is being absorbed by the oceans, ocean temperatures are a proxy for global warming. They took a gob-smacking leap up this year, shifting the historic pattern of more gradual increases.

This astonishing leap follows a record hot January and one of the longest runs of record-breaking summer temperatures the world has ever seen (shown in the above chart in pale orange). As a function of this, ocean temperatures are now in unknown territory, as shown by the red line in the graph above, reflecting readings for 2024.

Scientists have hypotheses as to what might have caused such a dramatic shift. To understand some of what the world's top scientists are thinking, we recommend you read "Global warming in the pipeline," by James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Leon Simons and other scientists, published in September 2023 by Oxford University Press, if you are capable of following deeply scientific, dense analysis. Alternatively, Dr. Hansen and his CSAS team sent a thank you memo to supporters in February, with something of a summary of the conclusion from the Pipeline paper. You can read this entire memo here, but we quote the following paragraph:

In Pipeline, among other things, we show that climate sensitivity is higher than IPCC’s best estimate and human-made aerosols are a larger climate forcing that is driving global warming acceleration. A stunning global change now underway is darkening of Earth (Fig. 1). Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) decreased since 2015 by an amount that has an effect on global temperature equivalent to a CO2 increase of more than 100 ppm. This darkening has doubled Earth’s energy imbalance and thrown into a cocked hat official claims about achieving climate targets. These facts make it more difficult, but not impossible, to secure a propitious climate for future generations.

Gelles also tries to answer the question of what's driving the heat. He writes: "Global warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, has been driving up global temperatures on land and in the sea for decades now. Over the past year, worldwide average temperatures were more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, higher than before the industrial age. New data from a variety of sources has led some climate scientists to suggest that global warming is accelerating." And since oceans absorb most of the added heat near the earth's surface, they have been steadily warming for years. Even so, data collected in the past year has been shocking to those who have been following the trends. It's pretty much "off the charts."

[Aside: The above graphic provides a powerful visualization of the acceleration of warming that is now happening. We appreciate that this news can be deeply disturbing on many levels, including because we've long been led to believe that it would take a lot longer for the severe heating effects of climate change to be felt. That may no longer be true, although clearly scientists don't fully know how all of the climate feedback loops work. We are deeply worried that we will see a year in which these super warm oceans turbo-charge the already record-breaking hurricane seasons that we've seen coming from the Atlantic in recent years. We post this information, so more people can realize just what unprecedented territory we are in. End Aside.]

THINGS YOU CAN DO

Should you be motivated to do more than you've done before to tackle climate, here's our list:

Review this listing of pronuclear nonprofits, influencers, artists and experts and support efforts to spread the word about the benefits of nuclear power.
Review Bank of America's analysts' report, "The Nuclear Necessity," to get ideas on public market investment options.
For managed fund offerings, we think Parnassus Investments represents the best of the ESG-focused sustainability public fund options we've seen.
Lastly, Nucleation offers a low-cost venture capital fund option, which, while higher risk, is one of the most impactful ways to help accelerate the commercialization of innovative solutions. We are clearly biased but, as Vinod Khosla has remarked about venture investing, “You only lose 1x your money if you fail, but if you succeed, you can make 100x.”

Read more at New York Times, "Scientists Are Freaking Out About Ocean Temperatures: "It's like an omen of the future," by David Gelles, Feb. 27, 2024.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Climate mayhem, Extreme weather, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

January 4, 2024

Dr. Hansen warning humanity to get its act together, deploy renewables and nuclear

Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"

Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.

The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.

Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"

For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.

Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.

On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."

Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.

By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.

To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.

Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.

The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.

The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:

The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.

Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.

"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.

October 18, 2023

Protected: Middle East Peace Demands Regional Collaboration

Published by Jason in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Energy abundance, Extreme weather, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, International Collaboration, Solving climate

May 9, 2023

Support for nuclear power soars

Grist writes: "US support for nuclear power soars to highest level in a decade: As the country looks to decarbonize, nuclear’s popularity continues to climb." This is what Akielly Hu, Grist's News and Politics Fellow, reports following the release by Gallup of a survey that found that 55 percent of US adults support the use of nuclear power. This total is up four percentage points in a year, and "reflects the highest level of public support for nuclear energy use in electricity since 2012."

Among other findings, the survey found that Republicans are more likely to favor nuclear energy than Democrats, which partisan divide is particularly visible at the state level, with more pro-nuclear policies adopted in Republican-controlled states than left-leaning ones. Nevertheless, support for nuclear energy by Democratic is also on the rise, in part due to advances in nuclear technologies and new federal climate laws that clarify the fact that nuclear power is carbon-free energy and can help in efforts to solve climate change.

The Biden administration has identified nuclear energy as a key climate solution to achieve grid stability in a net-zero future. The administration is pushing for the deployment of advanced nuclear reactor models that improve on the safety and efficiency of traditional reactor designs. These designs will all be far more consistent and reliable than wind and solar energy, which vary depending on the weather. The broader shift in public opinion and, in particular, Democratic opinion toward nuclear energy, is at least partially a function of strong pronuclear leadership coming from the Biden Administration and the DOE under Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

Read more at Grist, US support for nuclear power soars to highest level in a decade, by Akielly Hu, May 9, 2023.

December 22, 2022

Dire warnings from Dr. Hansen and team

Those who receive Dr. James Hansen's occasional newsletter from his Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions team, will have seen some dire reports before. Still, nothing we have seen is quite as unimaginable or alarming as learning that global warming is happening at the equivalent of 750,000 exploding Hiroshima atomic bombs in our atmosphere per day, every day. From burning fossil fuels. That's a lot of warming . . . !

No one likes to think about nuclear bombs. Their very bad reputation already negatively impacts how people think about nuclear energy (even though bombs are designed to explode and nuclear energy is designed so it can't explode). But in this case, Hansen's comparison really helps. Not just as to the scale of the warming problem but as to level of threat.

Earth's Energy Imbalance chart and climate response.

Fig. 1: 12-month running-mean of Earth’s energy imbalance, based on CERES satellite data for EEI change normalized to 0.71 W/m2 mean for July 2005 – June 2015 based on in situ data.

In today's newsletter, Earth's Energy Imbalance and Climate Response Time, Hansen and team review findings recently detailed in a newly issued report called Global Warming in the Pipeline. From this report we learn that there is a lot more solar energy being absorbed by our planet than is being lost through heat radiation out into space. As they explain, the heat budget of our planet is badly out of wack. There is far more energy coming into our atmosphere than going out. As though we have put an "extra blanket" on the planet, our emissions trap heat and are causing excess warming. Dr. Hansen frames this massive experiment as “human-made geoengineering of Earth’s climate.” He writes:

Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) varies from year-to-year (Fig. 1), largely because global cloud amount varies with weather and ocean dynamics, but averaged over several years, EEI tells us what is needed to stabilize climate.[4] When [Dr. Hansen] gave a TED talk 10 years ago, EEI was about 0.6 W/m², averaged over six years (that may not sound like much, but it equals the energy in 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, every day). Now, it appears, EEI has approximately doubled, to more than 1 W/m². [Emphasis added.] The reasons, discussed in our paper, mainly being increased growth rate of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and a reduction of human-made aerosols (fine particles in the air that reflect sunlight and cool the planet).

It appears that Dr. Hansen's 2012 TEDTalk, Why I must speak out about climate change, explained all these phenomena to us a full decade ago. So, in fact, his recent report is just providing us with an update on how little we have done to address the problem and thus how much worse things are. It is clear, we have not listened to him.

Dr. James Hansen's 2012 TEDTalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

In ten years, the amount of forced warming of our planet has nearly doubled and this is not a good thing.

So why has humanity failed to take the requisite actions to stabilize the climate? In characteristic understatement, we’re told it’s because of the climate’s delayed response. In other words, heat applied to oceans and ice sheets will still take a while to fully warm or melt them. Not only do the world’s oceans contain 270 times as much mass as the atmosphere, but water also needs 4 times as much energy as air to raise each unit of mass a degree in temperature. This provides a lag that allows global air temperatures to seem more normal than they really are. Without that lag, we’d likely have acted more aggressively to limit the heating. We’re just not fully experiencing how bad it really is. The good news: the climate’s delayed response gives us a little more time to take meaningful action, before we have so much disruption from our overheated world, that societies break down.

Dan Miller, a co-founder of the venture capital firm, Roda Group and a leading proponent of climate action, took time to review the entire 48 page Global Warming in the Pipeline paper submitted by Hansen and 14 co-authors. He summarized its findings as follows:

1. The Earth Climate Sensitivity (ECS) — the Earth’s short-term response to a CO2 doubling — is higher than previously assumed. Most scientists said it was ~3ºC, but Hansen et al now say it is 4ºC or more based on paleoclimate data. This means there is more warming “in the pipeline” than previously assumed. 2. While humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution, the actual climate forcing from all the added greenhouse gases is now ~4W/m^2, which is equivalent to a doubling of CO2 (i.e., CO2e (including all greenhouse gases, not just CO2) is about 560 ppm). 3. Part of the current warming has been hidden by human-made particulate air pollution (aerosols), mainly sulfur. When North America and Europe started to reduce emissions after the introduction of clean air acts in the 1970's, regional and global warming became more pronounced. In the past decades China and global shipping slashed sulfur emissions through cleaner fuels and sulfur filter systems ('scrubbers'). There are clear signals from ground, ocean and satellite based observations that the rate of global warming has recently doubled, which needs to be taken into account in risk assessments. 4. Assuming today’s forcing (4 W/m^2) stabilizes and human-made aerosols are eliminated, when all feedbacks — including “long-term” feedbacks — play out, we are on track for about 10ºC warming and 6~7ºC if aerosols stay at today’s levels. This is a “scenario” and we still control our future, though we are on track to increase climate forcing from today’s 4 W/m^2. 5. If greenhouse gas forcings keeps growing at the current rate, it could match the level PETM mass extinction within a century. We are increasing climate forcing 20X faster than in the PETM so “long-term” feedbacks won’t take as long as in the paleo record (though some feedbacks will still be much longer than a human lifetime). 6. The paper concludes that we must: (a) implement a carbon fee and border duty (Fee and Dividend); (b) "human-made geoengineering of Earth’s climate must be rapidly phased out,” i.e., we must stop emitting greenhouse gases, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and research and implement safe solar radiation management to counter the massive geoengineering experiment we are currently running; and (c) we must improve international cooperation to allow the developing world to grow using clean energy. 7. A companion paper will be coming out that addresses the near-term shutdown of the AMOC and associated “multi-meter” sea level rise on a century timescale.

Dan Miller runs a Clubhouse group called Climate Chat. Following the release of Hansen's report, he interviewed Leon Simons, a co-author of the paper, about their findings and the implications. It was a 2.5 hour conversation. It's not a happy topic but Dan, at least, is willing to confront the hard truths, in this case, that we must act immediately to address the climate crisis.

Part of the hard truth that is increasingly unavoidable, has to do with solutions. Once again, Dr. Hansen recognized the dilemma we have with respect to our options for solutions quite a long time ago: namely that we cannot realistically let go of fossil fuels without finding good alternatives, and the “best candidate is nuclear energy." Here he is discussing this in a 2013 interview:

Even though nuclear energy could dramatically help us alleviate emissions from fossil fuels, many people, including many smart investors, find the idea of proactively supporting nuclear power uncomfortable. They fear and loathe nuclear bombs—rightfully so—and can't emotionally separate those feelings enough to accept that there are compelling benefits from energy achieved by a related technology. Some just love "renewables," which generate energy from free wind and free sun. The costs of installing these have come way down and they are extremely popular, so what's not to like?

Nuclear, in contrast, is very hard to like. It's so complicated and hard for people to understand, plus it's fraught with scary meltdown scenarios, exclusion zones and radioactive waste. Beside, we know that it's expensive and takes a long time to build, so with solid reasons like that to reject it, why risk putting one's own environmental credibility and "green" loyalty in question by supporting it, since it's already too unpopular to succeed, right?

This type of thinking has made nuclear power, quite likely the best solution we have for eliminating dependence on fossil fuels, easy to either ignore or outright reject. And this might have been the end of the story except for the inconvenient fact that wind and solar are not doing the job of reducing emissions.

It turns out that people not only want but societies need and demand reliable energy. Even with cheap renewables, fossil fuel usage continues to expand. Because renewables are weather-dependent and the weather doesn't always cooperate. Which is, in turn, why more people are again revisiting the possibility of using nuclear power, because the alternative is natural gas. This spurred Dan Miller to invite Carl Page, founder of the Anthropocene Institute, into the Climate Chat Clubhouse to explore these issues and discuss why public support for nuclear power has dramatically increased.

It seems Russia's attack of Ukraine followed by energy scarcity elevated global appreciation of several critical facets of energy systems beyond mere price. People woke up to the fact that energy supply security, grid reliability, energy price stability, climate resilience and limiting carbon are all important. Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and now a war-induced energy crisis has re-focused the world's spotlight on nuclear energy—the only energy solution that addresses all of these critical energy needs. Germany, a nation deeply committed to nuclear phase-out, chose to delay the closures of its last nuclear power plants, rather than risk worsening their energy crisis. California choose to extend the life of Diablo Canyon for similar reasons.

Well maybe not shutting down existing plants makes sense, you might be thinking. But isn't it true that building new nuclear is too expensive and takes too long? The answer is not necessarily. Although Gen III nuclear power plant construction experiences have been mixed, with many in that class greatly delayed and vastly over-budget, a few of these Gen III plants have been built on time and in budget and nearly all are finally being completed. These are newer, safer light water designs and the learning process on those new designs has begun. Which means that costs of new builds can come down, if they get proper support. The question now for the industry and the world, is whether we are going to build on that construction knowledge to improve on past performance or abandon it.

Additionally, there's been movement in a whole new direction for nuclear technology: that of innovation. Gen IV nuclear, or what many call advanced nuclear and next-generation nuclear, are innovative new designs on the cusp of commercialization. A new crop of developers are working to reimagine nuclear without water cooling. These designs largely rely on physics for cooling, rather than muscular engineering. This reduces the need for back-up safety systems and redefines how small and how quickly nuclear can be built.

Next-gen is now widely expected to be smaller, modular, manufactured and constructed in a period of months and will be well-suited for use by corporate and industrial sites, college campuses, data centers, district heating systems and remote villages around the world. These advanced fission designs are engineering evolutions of previously demonstrated technologies such as molten salt, high-temperature gas and liquid metal-cooled reactors that do not require scientific discovery or breakthroughs. Fusion, which is developing the potential of magnetic confinement, inertial confinement and even metallic lattice confinement (formerly called "cold fusion") to generate massive amounts of carbon-free energy, still requires significant scientific breakthroughs but they also seeing progress and are widely expected to be ready to serve energy needs by mid-century.

[Click image to learn more about why Dr. Hansen and other scientists are suing the EPA.]

The question now is, will this growing global support for nuclear energy and the efforts of innovators to redesign nuclear for the 21st century enable us to meet our urgent climate goals? Can we build nuclear faster while steadily reducing costs? Or will lingering antinuclear prejudice induce an investor delayed response that prevents construction of new Gen III designs and commercialization of a range of Gen IV designs?

The answer to that question will determine whether or not humanity meets or misses our very limited window to eliminate fossil fuels emissions by 2050. This is why we applaud the growing investor enthusiasm for building existing commercially-viable Gen III nuclear plants, as well as investing in the further development of innovative Gen IV designs, including fusion. We need them all if we are to have any hope of supplanting the 100 million barrels of oil burned every day and the 80% of electricity powered by coal and gas before it is too late.

According to Dr. Hansen, it is already very late and our climate situation is frighteningly dire. People need to act with urgency and purpose on climate: we can no longer afford delay. What we decide to do to move off the wrong path that we have been on up until now will set our course, perhaps permanently. We need good alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear power may not be environmentalists' or investors' first choice but it has decades of proven efficacy and safety. Best of all, current innovations hold the promise of being able to scale rapidly to serve the world's urgent energy needs.

Those who invest wisely into this risky "contrarian" area may ultimately reap the reward of seeing their investments succeed. If they do, it means they will have helped displace fossil fuel as the energy of choice and provided a compelling clean energy alternative. And for that, there could well be extraordinary returns. There are plenty of risks for sure but, as it looks now, the risks of not investing in the solutions that can reduce emissions could well be far worse.

Hansen and team have recently detailed new warnings and updated data in a newly issued report called Global Warming in the Pipeline, which has been submitted to Oxford Open Climate Change for publication. Read more of the history of Dr. James Hansen's research into the heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. In August 1981, the New York Times published Study finds warming trend that could raise Sea Level, a report by Walter Sullivan about the study Dr. Hansen and six colleagues wrote which revealed the risk of sea level rise from global warming.

November 23, 2022

Giving Thanks & Getting

anksgiving isn't typically a time for making investment decisions . . . but it should be.

Americans give thanks in many ways, notably through the national holiday we call "Thanksgiving." We celebrate the abundance of the land we inherited centuries ago by feasting on turkey and other delicious indigenous foods, which sustained our existence as pilgrims. The holiday of Thanksgiving has survived generations of tumult, crisis and even war relatively unchanged. But we've arrived at a point at which we must recognize that humanity's current path—dumping fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere that is rapidly heating our climate—is disrupting those same ecosystems which have long supported us. Thus, it might be time to consider celebrating Thanksgiving both by honoring the bounties of nature that we have enjoyed and by working to save the ecosystems that have always supported human life and reverse the damage that we are doing by investing in climate solutions.

Given how large the climate problem is, the personal actions we might take, such as turning down the heat or even buying an electric car, will not make sufficient difference. Sadly, scientists tell us that the whole world must reduce emissions by a matter of gigatons in rapid fashion and we are running out of time to act, so our modest personal actions won't make enough difference. We must seek to find things that we can do which provide greater leverage. It turns out, investing in innovation is one of the ways that small individual actions can accumulate to make a big difference.

Why innovation? We know that climate change is caused by humanity's use of fossil fuels. While we want to stop burning of coal, oil, petroleum and natural gas, at the same time, no one wants to have to go without reliable sources of electricity, heat or transportation. Thus, the dilemma we face is that clean renewables like wind and solar don't provide a direct, reliable replacement for the widely available sources of fossil fuel energy.

What we need are better clean energy alternatives. We are forced to burn these dirty, carbon-emitting fuels to have comfortable, warm, well-furnished homes and functioning societies because we don't have better options available. We don't want intermittent lights, intermittent refridgeration, intermittent heart monitors or even intermittent Youtube videos. This is what makes addressing climate change so challenging for Americans: we're not willing to go cold turkey on the quality of life that we have enjoyed as a result of the abundance of fossil fuels. This is why we desperately need better options!

Investing in innovative ventures can accelerate their success in commercializing better energy alternatives. We have very few clean energy options and they all have significant downsides—such as intermittency—and there simply is nothing that is a runaway winner in terms of competing with natural gas or petroleum fuels. Which is why it is time for investors to step up and invest in those ventures innovating to create these improved technologies. These may be risky investments but if they can produce a broader set of clean energy options that enable us to maintain our lifestyles while reducing emissions, they will be very successful investments.

This is what Nucleation Capital is doing. Providing an investment vehicle that allows more investors to invest in some of the most exciting, most competitive clean energy alternatives coming out of the advanced nuclear sector. For many, investing in solar or wind power is appealing because they think "renewable" energy is what's needed. In fact, wind and solar power will always be intermittent—and that will never compete directly with fossil fuels. What's needed to replace fossil fuels is clean, reliable, dense energy and many energy experts see next-gen nuclear as our best option.

Nuclear energy may not yet be as popular as renewables but what's popular doesn't necessarily translate into great investment returns. Even winning consensus investments don't beat winning contrarian investments. Which is why, for those looking for impactful investments that are off the beaten path and which, by their nature, can produce extraordinary returns, nothing can beat nuclear energy innovation, which we believe will be the black swan of clean energy.

The advanced nuclear sector is the most under-appreciated clean energy sector that is innovating as fast as conceivably possible. This sector, more than any other, holds out tremendous promise for a technological solution to our climate dilemma, yet these innovators need access to more capital. Next-generation nuclear innovators are solving safety, scalability, cost, construction time and all the other issues we have long associated with traditional nuclear and making it into the energy source of our future. They are, for example, developing reactor designs that won't require water cooling or siting next to bodies of water. Innovators are also working to solve other problems that have held back the growth of nuclear, namely closing the fuel cyle and providing safe, permanent waste storage, among other things.

So, if you'd like to do more than just give thanks with your turkey, consider allocating some of your discretionary investment capital to a fund investing in the innovations that would allow us to end our dependence on fossil fuels. We expect that, over the next decade, the nations of the world will begin deploying any number of advanced designs to power cities, factories, campuses, ships, industry and homes without emissions, thereby maintaining energy security and grid reliability without needing fossil fuels. We'll even use nuclear to generate synthetic hydrocarbons (for where liquid fuels are still needed) and power carbon drawdown so can begin to reverse global warming.

Yes, investing in advanced nuclear is high risk. Yet it only poses the risk of losing your money (so allocate accordingly). Not solving climate change, however, risks losing everything we hold dear. Our propery, our children, our traditions. Which is why more investors are considering allocating a portion of their investible capital to investments that can meaningfully reduce demand for fossil fuels. Whether they can invest a lot or little doesn't matter so much: they will still get the satisfaction of knowing that they are using their money to make a difference in the final years that we have to rescue our future.

* The "Th" image above is the period table symbol for the element Thorium, and comes curtesy of the Thorium Energy Alliance, which advocates for the use of thorium along with uranium as a fuel for nuclear energy.

December 12, 2021

An historic investment opportunity

Until recently, nuclear innovation was not something an ordinary investor could invest in, even if you wanted to. For most of nuclear energy's history, most all design, development and testing was done through the National Labs with government funding and large corporations adapted those designs for the utilities. President Jimmy Carter defunded nuclear energy research and development and privatized that activity. By that time, however, a lot of work had been done to test a wide range of alternative approaches to generating electricity from fission and this work helps set the stage for today's innovations.

On December 20, 1951, the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-I) made history, generating electricity from fission and proving the thesis that fissile material could be used for peaceful purposes. The National Labs worked on some 52 different designs and configurations over about fifty years. The second Experimental Breeder Reactor, the EBR-II, a liquid metal-cooled fast reactor, ran for more than thirty years between 1961 and 1994.

Eventually, the pressurized Light Water Reactor (LWR), which was preferred and purchased by the Navy, became the utility industry's reactor of choice. Over the course of three decades, the U.S. built approximately 110 LWRs. Then, in the mid-1990s, President Jimmy Carter ended federal funding for nuclear research within the labs and, like space exploration, further nuclear energy development was privatized.

Fortunately, innovation in nuclear energy didn't stop entirely. Quite a number of innovative engineering teams sought to move fission and fusion nuclear energy forward through private ventures. In 2016, when Third Way hosted the First Annual Advanced Nuclear Summit and Showcase, there were about four dozen ventures that attended. Since then, the field has continued to grow, with many of these ventures raising capital privately to fund their ongoing work. Today there are about 250 ventures or initiatives working to develop new energy generation approaches, spanning fission, fusion, subcritical reactors and a burgeoning area of Low Energy Nuclear Reactors (LENR) which, given the climate crisis are needed more urgently than ever to replace fossil fuels.

Interest in bringing atomic energy into the 21st Century is stronger than it's ever been. Congress has been strongly supportive of advanced nuclear, passing the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Capabilities Act (NEICA) in 2018, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) in 2019, both signed by President Trump, and portions of the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA) and the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (NERDA) as part of the Energy Act of 2020, signed by President Biden. All of these major pieces of legislation seek to support the emergence of next generation technologies through a variety of mechanisms, including providing a growing amount of non-dilutive funding to help these ventures get their innovations certified and to market. Nevertheless, most all of the ventures developing solutions must still raise private funds in order to succeed.

Many ventures have had success attracting venture capital at various stages. Recently, Commonwealth Fusion announced a $1.8 Billion fundraise, which they hope will enable them to prove their approach to producing electricity from fusion, something that has never yet been achieved. From the list of well-known funders, it's clear there are a growing number of venture firms and wealthy individuals paying more attention to this area. This is good for the sector and for those institutions and individuals who can afford to play at the high-ticket level of traditional venture capital firms. But there hasn't been a way for the majority of accredited investors to invest in advanced nuclear.

Unfortunately, committing million dollar sums to a single deal or even a venture fund is out of reach for all but a few extraordinarily wealthy individuals in the top 1% of investors. That is until now. In the last few years, venture capital is been disrupted by tech innovations funded by venture firms (see how Venture Capitals are eating their own dogfood.) Specifically, investment platforms have been developed that profoundly automate most all of what historically has made venture capital very expensive. The AngelList rolling fund, which enables investors to participate in ventures funds through a low-cost subscription, has delivered exactly the kind of disruption that brings increased democratization to venture capital.

AngelList is not the only group pioneering new structures. For the first time in history, a range of crowdfunding, angel investment communities and online venture platforms now make it possible for investors at many levels to access a very rich variety of venture deals through both funds and SPV syndications and participate at far lower and more affordable capital levels, not just in advanced nuclear but across nearly every sector where innovation is happening.

Nevertheless, at every level, venture investing remains a high risk/high return asset class. Before one invests in a private angel deal (typically an earlier-stage funding round) or in later-stage venture rounds, such as a Series A or Series B fundings, one needs to assess one's own appetite for risk and interest in doing some homework to vet the opportunity, called "due diligence." Investing in private equity can boost returns but, at the same time, it often takes work and mature judgment to reduce mistakes, because an investor cannot easily sell their equity, once cash has been exchanged. One has to plan to hold on to the equity while it remains illiquid, even when it is clear that the venture is failing. This can result in the total loss of one's capital. The SEC, in fact, deems venture investing too risky for any but sophisticated investors, or those deemed "accredited investors." These are people or firms with sufficient assets that they are deemed capable both of assessing their investment risks but also being able to afford to lose their capital, without serious impacts, should their investment fail.

Online platforms further open up the possibility for a much more diverse range of fund sponsors and managers with unique types of expertise to create specialized investment vehicles in areas previously overlooked by the large pool of generalist venture funds. Which is great news for innovations happening in many sectors, including advanced nuclear, since highly technical sectors can be very challenging for generalists. This has enabled many new funds, like Nucleation Capital, to develop unique investment theses and connect with the growing numbers of accredited interested in investing in this area. Investors who are deemed accredited are finally able to access private equity at capital levels that work for them.

With the climate crisis driving demand for new types of safe, affordable clean energy, this is an exciting and historic moment of convergence. Not only is there a growing swell of next generation nuclear ventures seeking to create technologies to address the world's urgent demand for clean energy and carbon management, they are raising capital right when access to private equity has finally become affordable to millions more investors, some of whom are motivated to invest their values.

As new and unfamiliar as it is, there are growing numbers of investors looking to diversify their portfolios with angel and venture investments. Hopefully, they will take the time learn more about what venture capital is and select their investments wisely. Fortunately, the use of venture platforms are providing both guidance and deal flows, which enables new investors to achieve a level of diversification which, just as with public market portfolios, has been shown to improve returns for angel investors and venture capitalists alike. Diversification is particularly important in venture, however, since the goal of venture investors is to invest a wide enough range of ventures that the few that do succeed more than compensate for those that don't.

For further reading about venture capital, here are some additional articles that provide more background but there are plenty more.

- Understanding Traditional Venture Capital, part of FundersClub's VC 101 series
- How Venture Capital Works by NerdWallet, Dec. 6, 2021
- AngelList Pioneers Rolling VC Funds in Pivot to SaaS, by TechCrunch
- The Rolling Fund vs. the Syndicate Explained, by Groundbreaker.

August 28, 2021

Earth’s health at worst levels on record

Sarah Kaplan's review on the findings released by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in their report "State of the Climate in 2020," as described in a Washington Post article entitled Many measures of Earth’s health are at worst levels on record, NOAA finds, gives this prognosis: "Earth is arguably in worse shape than it’s been."

Even with a global pandemic that halted commerce and human activities for most of the year, Earth's fever has simply increased and global health metrics—including that for CO2 levels—have just continued to get worse. It's a dire report but nothing new, coming on the heels of the IPCC's "Physical Basis" report and follows along on the same trajectory as eleven prior reports published annually by NOAA.

NOAA’s assessment, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, draws on the work of 530 scientists from 66 countries. Atmospheric researchers found no evidence that last year’s 6 to 7% dip in global annual emissions had any lasting effect. The roughly 2 gigatons of carbon dioxide not emitted during the most severe pandemic-related shutdowns have been dwarfed by the more than 1,500 gigatons humans have unleashed since the Industrial Revolution began.

“It’s a record that keeps playing over and over again,” said Jessica Blunden, a NOAA climate scientist who has co-led “State of the Climate” reports for 11 years. “Things are getting more and more intense every year because emissions are happening every year.”.

Because carbon dioxide typically lingers in the atmosphere for a few hundred to 1,000 years, humans will have to stop emitting for much longer than a few months to make a meaningful dent in concentrations of the pollutant. Methane concentrations were also found to have spiked dramatically — rising 14.8 parts per billion to its highest level in millennia. The drilling and distribution of natural gas helps drive up methane emissions. But it is also produced by microbes found in both natural environments such as wetlands and human-built ones such as landfills and farms.

While a spike from natural gas usage is bad, the more worrying possibility is that this increase comes from natural methane sources — such as salt marshes, peatlands and mangrove forests — which would be indicative that we have reached a tipping point, where higher temperatures boost microbe action within thawing permafrost areas. This could continue to add methane for a long time to come, at ever increasing levels, even if we were able to successfully reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage.

Read the Washington Post's Many measures of Earth’s health are at worst levels on record, NOAA finds, by Sarah Kaplan and published August 28, 2021.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Extreme weather, LINKS

Older Posts ›